I guess I take issue with all of the conversations regarding Image Quality (IQ) that one reads on the Net, in part because they are ultimately arguments about gear, and more specifically about sensor size and camera make. Bantering back and forth about which camera is best, based on a subjective list of qualifiers is nothing less than short sighted nonsense.
Photography, like painting, drawing, printmaking or sculpture, to name a few related pursuits, is a creative endeavour. We don’t all go out and shoot the same brick wall, the same way, with the same light, and then compare results to see which camera captured the most detail with the least noise in order to decide who took the best photo! What we do is make images designed to capture the imagination, tell a story, or inspire the observer in some other way.
Sometimes, the photographer can achieve a successful image through incredible colour, carefully balanced composition, finely rendered detail, a uniquely positioned point of view, compelling subject matter, striking juxtapositions, timing of the moment, an eye for structure, incorporating tantalising textures, or through combinations of some, or all, of these elements, and more besides...
Knowing what to photograph, when, where, and how, then processing it as, or if, needed to realise your vision is far more important than whether a particular camera can shoot at 5, 10, or 20 frames a second. It is more important than whether Camera A is likely to produce less noise at some specific ISO setting than Camera B.
Or is it?
Given that artists are seeking to fulfil a specific and unique vision, it just may be useful that Camera A produces less noise than Camera B, or perhaps, it will work out the other way around. The thing is, photography, as I said above, is a creative pursuit. With that in mind, it may prove advantageous to understand the differences in colour, contrast, noise, etc. that distinguishes one camera, or one lens, from another. but not necessarily for the common IQ reasons argued about on the photo forums. The creative photographer might need the so-called poor noise performance, of Camera B to help get the look he really wants.
Instead of paying homage to hype, and eventually paying more money in pursuit of a common standard of image quality, you might find it far more profitable to do things a little differently, and in so doing, find something much more uncommon. In this day and age of mass everything, where every new look is instantly duplicated a million times over, it is easy to produce technically excellent images day after day without anyone ever really taking notice. It is more likely that you will be noticed, not for doing what everyone else is doing, but for doing something special - the ability to consistently produce the compelling AND the unique is probably far more valuable. In photography, as in life, it is probably better to lead than to follow, to be a trend setter than to be a trend adopter.
If there is one thing worth remembering, it is that image quality is really about producing photos that successfully reflect your vision. Attempting to achieve what others covet will likely result, if you are successful, in producing the same old, same old. Ask yourself, is the same old same old really likely to attract anyone for more than a moment, no matter how technologically proficient you and your camera may be? If it’s same old, it’s really just same old, no matter the cost of admission.
No comments:
Post a Comment